Development at Cutter and Summer (next to Rosebud)

[hikermtnbiker.livejournal.com]

Are folks aware of the 4 story, mixed use development planned for the corner of Cutter and Summer next to the Rosebud? Many of the local residents only recently found out about it and are understandably upset.

The plan is to tear down the old gas station and the adjacent 2 family. The building will be 48 feet high (think One Davis) and will consist of 1st floor retail, 2nd floor office and  6 2-bedroom apartments on the 3rd and 4th floors. There will be an underground parking garage (as they will use the entire lot) that will exit onto Cutter. We are really appalled at the size of this building which will dwarf the adjacent  buildings on Summer / Cutter, not to mention the added traffic entering and exiting the garage. It is simply too big for this busy corner at the edge of a residential neighborhood.

The developer is asking for 2 special permits from the Zoning Board; one to provide 7 fewer parking spaces than is required by the zoning ordinance and the other to allow construction of a 6 unit dwelling. A group of local residents is urging the ZBA to deny the special permits with the hope that a suitably sized building that adheres to the parking regulations, and better suits the neighborhood, will be built.

If you are also concerned and wish to express your opinion and / or become more informed here is what you can do:

- Write or Fax the Zoning Board of Appeals and ask that they deny the special permits for 377 Summer St.
- Call or email Ward 6 Alderman Rebekah Gewirtz: Rebekah@rcn.com 617-718-0792
- Attend a neighborhood meeting hosted by Rebekah Gewirtz
          This Monday, June 1
          5:30 pm at Ciampa Manor 27 College Avenue
- Attend the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
           This Wednesday, June 3, 6pm at City Hall in the Alderman's Chambers

To view the plans for the development and to read the Planning Board report, go to the city web site and planning board page and view info for 377 Summer St.

Thanks

Comments

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

Again though, the availability of non-metered parking spaces in the close vicinity of that building is virtually nil.

That depends entirely on your definition of close. There are definitely many non-metered spaces within a two block walk, which I would consider in the vicinity.

In regards to gas at $4.50 a gallon, I think you are seriously underestimating how attached people are to cars. Hell, I bet you gas could hit $12 a gallon, and car ownership wouldn't change much. You think that in 10-15 years fewer people will own cars, and will demand more cramped housing closer to public transit. I think that in 10-15 years there will be cars that either get much better mileage, or run on different fuel technology. I doubt you and I can agree on that.

Unless and until there is some significant improvements to the public transit system around here, going car free in Somerville is not going to be a reality for much of Somerville, even if the density is increased. Hell, even at $15 a gallon, and with transit improvements, I will continue to own a car that I use as little as possible. I'm not ever going to take public transit to drag two 120cf tanks of air and full scuba gear up to Rockport (unless someone develops anti-gravity tech!)

70 percent of New Yorkers do not own cars.

If you want to live in New York, don't live in Somerville. Seaiously, there's a reason I don't live in New York. Also one I don't live in downtown Boston, or even in Cambridge. I *LIKE* the single house plots with a little bit of green that I pass on my way to work. I see moving towards the model of New York as a giant step back for this city, and a degradation in my quality of life. I don't want someone else's perfect city forced on me when I live in what I already consider the perfect city.

I'm not sure what more you could do to guarantee that someone would not own a car

This I think is the fundamental disconnect. You're trying to get fewer people to own cars. I couldn't care less about that. I want fewer cars parked on our streets. The parking requirements for new developments help achieve this goal. Maybe in 15-20 years you *MIGHT* end up with fewer car owners in the area, but its not guaranteed, and I don't want to suffer the "short-term" increase in the number of cars parked on our public streets.

If you want to live in a neighborhood with yards and single family houses, don't live in the middle of Davis Square

If you want to build in the city of Somerville, you have to provide off stree parking for your development. Granting exemptions to these requirements makes it more likely that others will be granted in the future. I remember in the review process for the Willow development, the developer actually pointed to some of the huge buildings along the bike path as an argument that this building should be granted greenspace, parking and low income exemptions. The more of these that go up, the easier it is for someone else to keep chipping away.

I'm not arguing to change the regs here either, just to enforce the existing ones. No development should, in my opinion, be granted any exemptions to setback, low income, parking, greenspace, or any other restrictions, especially when they're being plopped next to existing housing.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

If you want to live in New York, don't live in Somerville.

Way to take my point completely out of context. I didn't say I wanted Somerville to be like New York. I was just pointing out that it is logical to conclude that making parking less available DOES result in fewer car owners. Would you dispute that?

You're trying to get fewer people to own cars. I couldn't care less about that.

Fewer car owners = fewer cars parked on the street, less traffic, less noise, fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

But that's not really what we're talking about here.

We need to agree on the terms of our discussion: I am not talking about changing the zoning laws for the entire city, I am talking about making the Davis Square business district itself a destination for non-car-owning home buyers and renters since it is one of the few places in Somerville with good public transit access. I agree that individual developers should not be granted exceptions. Instead I think the parking requirement for developments located in the square should be abolished entirely. If someone wants to put a residential building in the middle of Davis Square designed to cater entirely to non-car-owners they should be encouraged to do that they should not be required to cut into the amount of available housing (thus increasing cost for everyone) in order to accommodate car owners.

Although you may not agree, there is definitely consensus among city planners, economists, and environmentalists that a city with a larger number of people and a smaller number of cars tends to be more prosperous, safe, efficient, and healthy than one with fewer people and more cars. This doesn't mean that we have to populate the entire city with 50 story skyscrapers, but it does mean that where public transit is available, car usage should be minimized.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[dent42.livejournal.com]

We need to agree on the terms of our discussion: I am not talking about changing the zoning laws for the entire city, I am talking about making the Davis Square business district itself a destination for non-car-owning home buyers

Fine, but rather than achieve that goal through exemptions, I'd rather see the zoning changed for the district in order to not give fuel to the next developer outside the district using the exemption as an excuse to push for their own. While they're at it, if they truly care about this, they should revoke the right of residents of these buildings to get a Somerville parking permit. That would achieve your goal without putting a burden on existing residents of the surrounding area.

You seem to think that by adding all this housing close to the T only people with cars would move there. Its certainly possible. I think that if this happens, people with cars will just park a little further from their homes, flooding the neighborhoods around the district with extra cars.

Re: Call me a pessimist but...

[m00n.livejournal.com]

rather than achieve that goal through exemptions, I'd rather see the zoning changed for the district

Agreed. I don't think there's anything about this new development that makes them exempt from the rules other than the fact that they are developing within the Davis Square business district.

they should revoke the right of residents of these buildings to get a Somerville parking permit

I think this would be a great idea, but only if there are already provisions in the parking office for making exceptions based on address. I suspect that right now all you have to do is prove you live in Somerville, what neighborhood you live in, and that you own a car.

You seem to think that by adding all this housing close to the T only people with cars would move there.

On the contrary. I think a greater percentage of non-car-owners will try to live here than in other less transit accessible developments across the city. Almost anywhere else in Somerville that these units could be built would require full car accommodations because 100 percent of the tenants would need to own cars in order to use the space. This would certainly result in more cars in Somerville and more development overall, even if all of the development was slightly shorter.